White
Americans might take greater pride in their racial and ethnic heritage
were it not for the fact that many of their ancestors arrived in
disreputable circumstances. Not everyone was a Pilgrim arriving on
the Mayflower. Many of the early colonists were convicts who were
given the choice of a jail sentence or emigrating to America. European
immigrants might generally have fit the class description that is
inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

The
paupers of the Old World, lifted up to a prosperous state in the
New, had their ethnicity removed in
the American “melting pot.” Intermarriage
took place between different groups. A new culture developed in America replacing
what had been brought from Europe. At first, the ethnic communities tried
to maintain separate cultural identities but this became difficult and
then nearly
impossible when the media of mass communications brought a strong cultural
influence to bear.

In
1904, a Swedish professor of geopolitics, Rudolf Kjellen, known for
his nationalistic views, told a Swedish-American audience
at Augustana
College
that their ethnic
community was destined to disappear. He observed that the character of
a people was determined by the land, and Swedes could not transport
a culture
formed
in the Baltic to lands along the shores of the Mississippi river. “The
landscape has more power than memories (of the old country), “ he said,
and the character of the people would change accordingly. “Your past
is at one with ours (Sweden’s),” he said; “(but) your present
and future are and shall be different.” In other words, the forces
of assimilation into an American community would prevail.

class
distinctions

Therefore,
it is no longer fitting for Americans to identify themselves primarily
in terms of ethnic origin. In a nation of mongrelized nationalities,
a more appropriate indicator of personal definition would be socioeconomic
class. In medieval Europe, there was an upper class of aristocrats
and a lower class of ordinary people, most of them serfs. As the
society developed, its class structure became further differentiated
into a lower class, an upper class, and a middle class. Some have
gone further, splitting the last category into an upper-middle class
and a lower-middle class.

The
basic class distinction would depend on how much wealth a family
possessed. The upper class would be rich,
the middle class would be moderately well
off, and the lower class would be poor. In the 1840s, a British historian,
William Alexander Mackinnon, defined membership in the upper class as the
ability to command the labor of one-hundred men or more. Middle-class persons
might command the labor of between five and one-hundred men. Someone in
the lower class would command only his own labor and perhaps that
of up to three
additional persons.

Considering
that the average annual wage during that period was 30 pounds sterling,
this scheme of class would translate
into annual incomes, respectively,
of 3,000 pounds for an upper-class person, between 150 pounds and 3,000
pounds for a member of the middle class, and below 150 pounds for lower-class
persons.

Today,
such classifications make less sense because income levels are constantly
changing. One cannot quote hard-and-fast income figures
without
soon being
out of date. Still, there is the concept of the “poverty line”,
an annual dollar amount of income for a family of given size. That
level of income would presumably distinguish lower-class from middle-class
people. There is no such delineation for upper-class persons although
the press sometimes
discloses how many millionaires or billionaires live among us.

Although
class status still correlates with income and wealth, a more
meaningful criterion might be how that wealth was derived.

Generally
speaking, the upper class would be persons with incomes from inherited
wealth, like the medieval aristocrats who lived on
landed
estates. Members
of today’s upper class might be employed in running a large
family business or they might earn their livelihood from dividends,
interest, or
rents that their often inherited properties earned, entrusting
others with the management.

The
middle classes would comprise that group of people who earn
a living by doing skilled or semi-skilled work. They might be
employed by another
person owning business or by an organization. However, this category
would also include self-employed farmers, sole proprietors or
partners in businesses,
independent professionals, and others who supported themselves
by
providing a service. A further distinction might be made between
blue-collar
workers who work with their hands and white-collar workers who
work with their
heads, although all work involves some degree of knowledge.

In
the lower class, one finds people who do not work or who work sporadically
or in criminal activities as well as certain unskilled
workers who
are not paid enough to make ends meet. Such persons may depend
for support
on public
assistance. The class definition is unclear though it involves
the notion of economic marginality.

Roughly
speaking, those would be the economic definitions of class. Certain
cultural characteristics
accompany them. Going
from the
lower to the
upper classes, individuals tend to show an increasing degree
of intelligence, refinement, and sophistication. Upper-class
people
are less physical
and
more intellectual,
less materialistic and more cultivated.

Even
so, the lower and upper classes are curiously related to each other,
and be unlike
the middle class, in certain
of their
attitudes.
Both may
tend to live more for the moment whereas middle-class people
tend to postpone the rewards of labor for the sake of distant
goals.

Because
upper-class persons do not have to work, they have more time for
other activities including the pursuit of
pleasure. They have
time to engage
in intellectual or artistic cultivation. Safely above
the economic grind, they can indulge themselves in projects
that aim at
personal
or community
improvement.

Lower-class
people may also lead more leisurely lives but in this case it may
be because they may lack the
personal
discipline
or
the opportunity
to
work for sustained periods of time. Edward Banfield,
a scholar of the American city, has argued that the
urban poor are “rigidly present-minded” and
therefore cannot be effectively educated or encouraged
to lift themselves out of poverty through government
programs. In his view, this type of person
tends toward crude physical expression and wants instant
gratification of material needs.

The
middle classes are more manageable. They have more regular habits
than lower-class
people do. Compared
with the upper
classes, their
pursuits are more narrow and self-seeking. Middle-class
people also tend to be
moralistic.
They are earnest, methodical, practical, hard-working,
upward-striving, and
self-reliant. In contrast, upper-class people put
more emphasis on public service. The lower class has little
to spare beyond
its immediate
resources
and needs.

the
middle class defined by upward mobility

Because
most Americans identify with the middle class, our discussion of
American identity will focus primarily on that group. For most of
recorded history, being of “noble blood” was a man’s
highest state. It was exclusively an upper-class attribute. The middle
classes were less concerned with parentage or status at birth. Their
sights were set on improving their situation in society.

The
middle class came into its own in the late 18th century with the
rise of
democracy and the beginning of the capitalist system. At last,
the common
man had a chance to make something of himself. He could become rich through
successful business activity. He might also be elected to a position in
government. Both the American and French revolutions were led by
persons associated with
the middle class, sometimes called the “third estate”. This
was the merchant class.

A
society that gave ordinary people the opportunity to advance socially
and economically made greater progress than other types of society. In
an environment
of personal freedom, knowledge increased and business flourished. William
Mackinnon expressed a view prevalent in 19th century England when he
wrote: “In
tracing the progress of civilization, it is scarcely possible to attach
too much importance to the middle class and to its influence over public
opinion.
Wherever the impulse inherent in man to improve his condition has free
scope, as it will have in a country blessed with liberal institutions and
equality
of laws, a middle class must necessarily become the most powerful in the
community.”

critics
of the middle class

It
has become fashionable among intellectuals, however, to deride the
middle class. Karl Marx equated the bourgeoisie (middle class) with
capitalists who were exploiting factory workers; they needed to be
overthrown through armed revolution. Marx catalogued the various
evils which middle-class factory owners had inflicted on the British
working class even as his own work was being subsidized by Friedrich
Engels’ half interest in a Manchester textile mill. The Marxist
political philosophy has stimulated a loathing of middle-class values
and a preference for the urban poor, seen as innocent people victimized
by an inhumane social order.

In
recent years, Christian clergy have likewise cast a disdainful eye
on middle-class people living comfortably
in suburbs while the inner city suffers.
Anyone who has attended services in a main-line Protestant church is familiar
with the tone of sermons that chastise and belittle those in their congregations
and elsewhere whose material comfort has inured them to a world of suffering.
Some preachers speak of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting
the comfortable.” What passes for “social justice” in
some circles seems to be a desire to afflict the middle class.

Another
point of view is that which Walt Whitman expressed in Democratic
Vistas. He wrote: “The true gravitation-hold of liberalism in the
United States will be a more universal ownership of prosperity, general
homesteads,
general comfort ...(S)o a great and varied nationality ... were firmest
held and knit by the principle of the safety and endurance of the aggregate
of
its middling property owners ... (U)ngracious as it may sound ... democracy
looks with a suspicious, ill-satisfied eye upon the very poor, the ignorant,
and on those out of business. She asks for men and women with occupations,
well-off, owners of houses and acres, and with cash in the bank - and
with some cravings for literature, too.”

Democracy
thus posits a dignity in man which is fulfilled in the exercise of
adult choices and
achievement of a prosperous, middle-class status.
Middle-class man is free to think and act for himself. If he does so
foolishly, selfishly,
or wrongfully, it’s still better than having been denied the
opportunity.

The
Marxists made the middle class an enemy. Unfortunately for them,
lower-class factory workers, after they have received a few
wage increases,
begin to
exhibit middle-class tendencies. In industrially advanced societies,
unless the political leaders disastrously mismanage the public business,
hopes
of enticing working-class or other disenfranchised groups to take
part in a
revolution usually fizzle. It would appear, then, that the end of
Marxist “class
struggle” is not a classless order of unselfish farmers and
industrial workers but a class of non-ideological persons that retains
the same
selfish attitudes as people anywhere.

The
middle class is the universal class, if humanity is lucky. All gravitates
toward its democratic
mean. However, if the economic goal
of poor people
is to pull themselves up to the level of the middle class, they
should also be wanting to make the conditions of that middle-class
life
humanly tolerable.
There is no use in helping people to become integrated into the
larger society if, once they reach that level, they fall down for
lack of
a sustaining spirit.

a
life of spiritual deprivation

Too
often the middle-class American has attained the fruits of economic
success only to wither inside. The same conditions of institutional
life that have enabled him to succeed economically have eroded his
culture and identity. There is an impoverishment of soul that may
defeat him in the end.

Contemporary
Americans spend much of their lives in artificial and colorless routines.
If a working American
kept track of activities in a typical day,
he might find that most of his time was devoted to meeting the time-constrained
requirements of a job, fighting traffic to and from work, doing routine
errands, grooming himself or relaxing, eating and sleeping, and dealing
with emergencies.
The remaining “free time” is apt to be spent in the fantasy
world of popular entertainment. A few (especially young people) escape
into virtual
worlds made possible by the computer. After all the institutional influences
and demands have taken their toll, a person has little left of his own.

The
pattern was set when a person first went to school: One understands that
one must enter a “system” to succeed in life. That system
takes away choices that would normally need to be made each day and instead
imposes
a routine. The day that a child sets foot in kindergarten, he enters
an enclosed structure of choices and activities furnished by a system
that
may later
lead to success in a career. One may spend the better part of one’s
life operating within that structure. Uncertainty is replaced by an implied
guarantee that, in the end, things will work out for the best.

I
liken this to a conduit pipe through which water flows from one end
to the
other. The pipe offers a way to transport water efficiently. Nature,
on the other hand, sends rain water through an irregular network of
streams, lakes, and rivers that move it from a mountain top to the
sea. This system
is less efficient but more beautiful. So our lives sacrifice beauty
to efficiency defined in terms of achieving socioeconomic goals.
In a world
created by
institutions, we give up experiencing the present for the sake of future
well-being.

No
matter how well institutions may be designed to satisfy human needs,
an element in life will be missing - namely, the opportunity
to apply
one’s
own judgment to meet life’s challenges. Ought a person allow
his innate ability to look out after himself to degenerate for the
sake of reliably
reaching an end? Is not one of life’s satisfactions the chance
to experience and overcome various kinds of danger? Is not the freedom
to set one’s
own goals desirable in itself? The fact that people will gamble away
huge sums of money in Las Vegas, knowing that the odds are stacked
against them,
testifies to the fact that material success alone, unrooted in an
uncertain struggle, cannot sustain the human spirit.

Schopenhauer
once wrote that the goal of civilized man was not so
much to have pleasure as to avoid pain. Indeed, each innovation
in society
seems calculated to make the world safer than it was before. In
the business world,
the latest innovation is usually a scheme for avoiding loss or
sharing the risk: safety-deposit boxes, traveler’s checks,
insurance, mutual funds, derivatives, government guarantees. The
concern with
safety may, however,
be less due to people’s preferences than to society’s
control by institutions. Institutions demand safety because, once
established, they
and their managers stand less to gain from spectacular successes
than to lose from disastrous reverses. Such considerations are
easer to argue in
a committee.

Individuals,
however, need some acquaintance with danger and uncertainty. If institutions
set rigid conditions around
him at work, a person
may take out his frustrations on family or friends where an opportunity
for discretionary
action yet remains. Risk is what gives life its savor. Necessity
is
the basis of an authentic life. That being the case, how can
institutions enhance the
human spirit if they remove the opportunity to experience those
things? In order for a life to be beautiful, it should, to a
large extent, “tread
the path of necessity” - be filled with activities that
a person has to do. Otherwise, to pretend to be experiencing
life’s
reality from artificial arrangements is about as attractive,
morally speaking, as Marie Antoinette
pretending to be a farmer on her royal estate.

riding
the escalator to success

Middle-class
man seeks socioeconomic advancement. Compared with the lower and
upper classes, that is the key to his identity. Many immigrants came
to America from Europe where people were locked for life in a particular
social class. America, to them, represented an opportunity to move
beyond those limitations. They would join the American middle class
which was driven by a desire for upward mobility. Institutions were
developed catering to those who would be upwardly mobile.

The
most important of those institutions was education. It created an
opportunity
for hard-working students to distinguish themselves by receiving good grades
on tests and by graduating from college with a degree. The type of degree
received, reputation of the college, and the grade transcript would then
point the graduate toward a satisfying career. And so, getting a college
education has become like a religion for middle-class Americans.

Until
recently, the normal pattern of middle-class life involved a three-step
process:
education, career, retirement. After four or five years in the
care of parents, a child would enter the educational system. Twelve or
more years
would be spent in kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and
high school. Some persons then would get off the escalator to assume
menial
jobs. The academically more talented ones would go on to a four-year
college. Some
would stay on for a few more years to receive a master’s degree
or a doctorate.

Education
was the first of a two-step achievement process. The second
step was to pursue an income-producing career. This might last thirty,
forty,
or fifty years. The various business firms and professions each had
a career path offering promotions. Finally, at the age of 65, the
careerist
would
retire and receive a pension. At last, there was freedom and reasonable
financial security but also the prospect of declining health.

One
notes that, from the age of five to the age of sixty-five, the aspirants
to upward mobility would be stuck in a system that locked
in the best
years of their life. One might compare this arrangement with a flying
trapeze.
One needed to catch the outstretched arms of someone at the next
level
to be promoted. The object was to advance with good speed in these
high-level positions and hopefully wind up at the top. Big incomes
and pensions
were the reward for success. Individuals who missed a connection
at some stage
of the game would have a lesser reward.

Ultimately,
however, the question must be asked: What profits it a man to acquire
a pot of gold if
he is meanwhile required to give
up
his life?
A
Chinese billionaire, Lim Goh Tang, owner of the Genting “City
of Entertainment” complex
in Malaysia, put it this way in a book: For many years of youth and
good health, he put off doing what he enjoyed for the sake of making
a fortune.
Now that he was old and rich and had time for himself, he was spending
a fortune on medical care. If he had to do it over, he thought he
would do
things differently. He had learned life’s lesson, but now it
was too late. (The man has since died.)

the
promise betrayed

Now,
of course, the career structure in America is crumbling. Technological
efficiencies and outsourcing of production have eliminated many high-paying
jobs. Our large corporations no longer offer job security or guaranteed
pensions. Slashing jobs is seen as a way to improve the bottom line.
Confining as it seemed at the time, being on a treadmill or captive
to a system of corporate lifetime employment now seems attractive.
It is fondly associated with a vanishing middle-class life.

Yet,
the education piece remains in place. While the economy implodes,
education
is a growth industry. Its increasing demand is driven by fear of competing
for a shrinking number of jobs. It’s said that Americans must develop
high-level skills to have a place in the global economy. A college education
is said to be just what is needed to acquire those skills. Its cost has
meanwhile been increasing far more rapidly than the general rate of inflation.

As
tuition soars, however, job opportunities for college graduates and
other Americans continue to shrink. Free-trade doctrines taught in the
economics
departments of the same colleges and universities enable the job loss.
That does not stop educators from shamelessly beating the drum for the
need for
young men and women to take out more student loans to purchase more of
their high-priced service.

is
the middle class capable of revolution?

With
all the betrayals going on in high places in our society, it’s
getting to the point that we may need a revolution. But who will
carry it out? The middle class, comprising the bulk of our population,
would have to be involved in this effort if it will succeed. Is that
class capable of such a thing?

Remember,
these are people who have spent their entire lives inside an institutional
cocoon, conforming
to its requirements each step of the way. When have they
ever had a chance to act independently? Many years in school have given
them the skills to read and write, pass resolutions, issue reports
and position
papers, and employ decision-making models; but a real-life revolution will
require more than this. It will require, for instance, people believing
in themselves who may never have had to face a serious challenge.
Hollow people
will need quickly to develop substance. They will need to learn to respect
themselves and others like them.

This
gets back to the question of identity - middle-class identity. A
strong sense of self-identity makes a
person strong; and the same is true of communities.
If middle-class people had a positive identity upon which to build communities
of interest, they would gain self-respect. That would be the first step
in building resistance to the exploitation of our nation by its leaders.
A positive
identity is not given but earned. When enough self-respecting persons
come together in a common purpose, revolutionary changes can take
place.

A
precondition of personal strength is that individuals have enough
free time to acquire the experience of acting independently.
They would be
free to learn by making their own mistakes. For a time, American society
did
show progress in giving its working people more leisure time but that
progress has stalled. Work hours these days are becoming longer as
employers demand
a greater show of loyalty from employees as the price of keeping their
jobs.
The call for improved educational standards and verification of results
has likewise put increased pressure on students to perform their display
of knowledge
on a quickening treadmill that leaves little time for anything else.
All these people on a fast track to “success” have, in fact,
become little more than slaves.

our
identity as consumers

Until
recently, Americans did enjoy a high degree of material comfort even
if it was financed by home-equity loans and credit cards. The hard-charging
business managers and professionals were paid well even if they had
little free time. That created a situation where people were defined
more by what they bought than by what they did. Their identities
were based upon their role as consumers of certain commercial products.

And
so, when you think of the American identity, it is often as a loyal
customer of one or another brand-name product. A “real American” eats
at a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant, or drinks Budweiser beer, or
drives a Chevy truck, or, perhaps (reflecting the new upscale mood), has
coffee at Starbuck’s, or wears designer jeans. When “American
culture” comes to other countries, it is usually in that guise. Television
commercials drive home the message of brand loyalty each day.

Common
to all those forms of personal identity is the fact that you, the
consumer,
are someone serving another’s economic interest. It is not
a self-chosen identity that is considered American but a willingness
to be associated with someone else’s enterprise. A nominally free
people, we let ourselves be used that way. We submerge ourselves in another’s
famous name. The name might be written on a tee shirt that we wear. It
might be written on our diploma.

It’s time for Americans to declare
their “identity independence” and
exercise their freedom to be what they themselves want to be. Identity
independence means the ability to choose your own identity instead of
having someone else
do it for you. You define who you are. Having more free time to do what
you want, you then become what you do out of free choice. You become
a more authentic
person.